From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1005E1381F3 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 15:50:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4F510E0CB6; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 15:50:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.digimed.co.uk (82-69-83-178.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.69.83.178]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E619FE0BA8 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 15:50:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from digimed.co.uk (shooty.digimed.co.uk [192.168.1.8]) by mail.digimed.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 39F0681CDB for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 16:50:36 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 16:50:31 +0100 From: Neil Bothwick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes Message-ID: <20130407165031.236d4761@digimed.co.uk> In-Reply-To: References: <515D442A.1090209@gmail.com> <515D7AF4.5020104@libertytrek.org> <20130405161759.GA3456@linux1> <515F0AA7.808@libertytrek.org> <20130405184128.GA3820@linux1> <20130406011439.GA3980@waltdnes.org> <20130406094328.5ecd3cdc@digimed.co.uk> <20130406203157.1fe950b6@gentoo-main.kwkh-home> <20130407043403.GA6721@waltdnes.org> <20130407115852.77ac964b@digimed.co.uk> Organization: Digital Media Production X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0-156-gf9f793 (GTK+ 2.24.17; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-GPG-Fingerprint: 7260 0F33 97EC 2F1E 7667 FE37 BA6E 1A97 4375 1903 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/+a=cLsiuHOtutkc30HFfZWV"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 5b8571e9-a519-4e03-bb45-d5a6f034abc6 X-Archives-Hash: c7e1a0d847dcd117f713b84e8d46e03a --Sig_/+a=cLsiuHOtutkc30HFfZWV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 22:26:52 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote: > > udev has broken nothing, it is avoiding the breakage caused by a > > fundamentally flawed renaming procedure. Or does mdev have some magic > > for for renaming eth0 to eth1 while eth1 already exists? > > =20 >=20 > "Broken" or not is totally depending on the eye of the beholder. >=20 > Server SysAdmins *sometimes* need to reboot, and if the name suddenly > changes, that's hell on earth for us. >=20 > AFAICT, prior to udev-200, once an interface got assigned an ethX > moniker, it just won't change name unless there's a hardware change. At > least, that's my experience so far. But that isn't guaranteed. Basically, renaming within the eth namespace has always had the potential for breakage, whether it worked for you or not. The fact that for 99% of the time it didn't break doesn't remove that potential, and a server with multiple NICs is more likely to be affected than a laptop. Also, if you believe the breakage won't apply to you, there is nothing to stop you continuing with your old rules, in fact that is exactly what udev does if you don't remove them yourself. --=20 Neil Bothwick Many husbands go broke on the money their wives save on sales. --Sig_/+a=cLsiuHOtutkc30HFfZWV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlFhlcsACgkQum4al0N1GQNfXwCgqOPyaD3cmveOpwRnyGAhcQMg CJQAnAmTIJDdUQq74FZh/3kqTXkAjIVY =1VUq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/+a=cLsiuHOtutkc30HFfZWV--